Wikipedia

Talk:Sharia/Archive 7

< Talk:Sharia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Aquib american muslim in topic Are Hindus considered people of the book?
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

And restored again, please provide concrete examples before edit warring

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aquib if you're going to insist that the citations used do not support the claim that "imposition of sharia has been accompanied by controversy, violence, etc." please provide concrete examples; I'm still not seeing how your objections are based on anything other than personal taste and perhaps some need for a little discreet pious fraud. I've already addressed your objections; you should provide concrete examples before you edit war.Jayzames (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Better and more up to date Orwell references (me trying to be somewhat helpful)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aquib, although I think the reference to Orwell is a rather spectacular malapropism, as it's been you and not I who has been insisting on euphemisms and avoidance of the mentioning of unhappy facts, I do think the reference you're looking for in this case would be Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" or "The Prevention of Literature" rather than Animal Farm, although neither one are really going to support the point that you're trying to make, and in fact tend more to undermine what you're trying to say (e.g. "A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy"). Politics and the English language isn't really about politics as much as it is just a general guide to good writing a la Strunk & White.Jayzames (talk) 03:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Islamic references regarding the UNDHR

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since Orwell isn't really a great reference for you in defense of any theocracy, I'm going to suggest this genuinely Islamically based critique of the UNDHR in a fatwa from Shaikh Muhammad Al-Munajid of Islam Q&A as a possible point of reference for you. This isn't meant to suggest that Al Munajid represents the definitive opinion of all Muslims, but I just want to show that religious grounds do indeed exist for "discrepancies" between sharia and the international consensus on human rights, and that you can criticize the UNDHR from an Islamic perspective. These are also not just the concerns of a single person, as the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which represents the Muslim nations of the world, was likewise sufficiently opposed to the UNDHR on sharia grounds to draft its own declaration. Other Muslims can of course disagree based on secular human rights considerations, and can deny that religion should play any role in the matter of human rights; Adama Dieng, a strong critic of the sharia based Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is himself also Muslim.

Anyway, on to the fatwa:

“The global human rights organizations call for justice and equality and speak against oppression and transgression against people on the grounds of gender, race and colour, and support other noble principles. Is there any reason why we should not cooperate with them? If there is, what is the basis of objecting to these noble principles?.
Praise be to Allaah.
The Muslim should not be deceived by the so called western and European “human rights” organizations, because although they outwardly appear to support the oppressed and to take a stance against torture and undermining of human dignity in prisons and detention centres – which in general terms are good ideas – they also play other roles, and support other principles which are aimed at destroying the family, and opening the door to slander against Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and all his fellow-Prophets. They are opposed to the rule of sharee’ah which enjoins hadd punishments such as stoning for the adulterer, execution for the apostate and cutting off the hand for the thief, becoming part of legislation and being implemented, which is in fact very rare. These organizations are also opposed to the shar’i rulings that have to do with women, such as the necessity of her wali’s consent for marriage, the command to observe hijab, and the prohibition on her mixing, in addition to other principles where they claim that they want to liberate man from religious obligations and to make man free in the way he conducts his affairs, not restricted by good morals or sublime shar’i rulings.
To sum up what these organizations promote: it is that man should be able to do whatever he wants, no matter how perverse. They support lesbians, homosexuals and bisexuals, and religious deviance. They regard it as a human right to disbelieve in whatever religions one wants and to express one’s opinion – even about the Prophets – without any fear or shame, and they also support the liberation of woman from the control of her father, husband or religion.
Secondly:
There follow some of the articles of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations on 10/12/1948 CE, which we are quoting from their website:
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
These so called rights and freedoms which they call for all people to enjoy regardless of religion make the monotheist and the polytheist equally entitled to these rights and freedoms, so the slave of Allaah and the slave of the Shaytaan are placed on the same level, and every worshipper of rocks, idols or people is given the complete right and freedom to enjoy his kufr and heresy. This is contrary to the laws of Allaah in this world and the Hereafter.
... ...
It is a call to abolish the ruling on apostasy, and to openly flaunt the principles of kufr and heresy. It is a call to open the door to everyone who wants to criticize Islam or the Prophet of Islam Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and to have the freedom to criticize and express oneself with no restrictions.
These are corrupt principles. Even if they suit their lives, values and religion, they do not suit us and they are contrary to our pure sharee’ah, which brought rulings that are suited to individuals and societies, and establish noble morals, and protect minds, honour, physical well being and wealth, and show people the religion which Allaah loves and is pleased with.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
It is from this Article that the calls of these organizations come to protect criminals against execution, and started to give bad publicity to the nations which carry out the hadd punishments of Allaah by stoning married adulterers and executing bandits and those who spread mischief in the land. Now these organizations proudly claim that they have convinced many nations to abolish the death penalty for killers, rapists and criminals. This is contrary to sound human nature, reason and sharee’ah, and it is a message that gives peace of mind to those criminals that their lives will never be lost because of their deeds, which is a way of spreading mischief on earth.
They claim that the individual has the right to life and liberty, even if it is a bestial life, and even if that freedom leads to corruption, sicknesses and loss of security for the family and society.
Article 16.
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
This article annuls the role of the woman’s guardian (wali) which is to protect the woman’s rights in marriage, and to help his daughter or sister to make a good choice, and to ask about the religious commitment and character of the suitor. It is by His wisdom that Allaah has prescribed this. If marriage was left up to the woman without her guardian’s consent, you would see most girls marrying those who enchant them of the wolves of men, who are eager to rob them of their chastity then throw them aside.
They also give the wife the same rights of divorce as the husband has. This is something that causes women to turn against their husbands and leads to the break up of their families. The one who knows the nature of men and women will not be able to agree to such nonsense. Western families are not so intact that we can say: Look at how they were destroyed. The call for homosexual rights and the rights of women to form any relationship she wants and women’s rights in marriage and divorce – what families can be built on such shaky foundations?
It is worth noting that these organizations are used for political purposes to put pressure on the Muslim states that care about virtue, modesty and morals, or that apply all or some of the rulings of sharee’ah. Some Muslim nations have abolished the death penalty, and they have introduced strict laws about marriage at an early age for both genders, but they pay attention to woman’s rights to khula’ and maintenance, etc, which causes widespread mischief and evil in many areas of life”

Now while, this alim has expressed his views with considerable indigation, he has been kind enough to detail his views on why sharia cannot tolerate the UNDHR. Your objections, while similarly high on outrage, have been conspicuously short on the details of why my edits violate Wikipedia policy, are badly sourced, are misrepresented, etc. I would love to see (particularly in light of the foregoing) just precisely how I've been a "slanderous," and "misleading" perpetrator of a "detestable hack job." Jayzames (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, please make a specific case why the sources used are low quality, do not support the claim, etc.

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Aquib, again, please make the case on the talk page that the sources are low quality, contravene the claims made, and whatever else constitutes grounds for your reverts before edit warring. Since the sources are publicly available, you can freely access and quote the sources to show why they are problematic. Shukran!Jayzames (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, technically, if you're asked for an explanation, you should provide it pursuant to WP:DE. I've made my specific explanations, you should provide yours as to why the sources are low quality and don't support the claims made, and use specific quotes. If you want you can file an RFC. Ashkurak!Jayzames (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, please present your specific objections on the talk page. The sources are public and quotable. Presenting your claims on the talk page will make a better case for you if an RFC or some other proceeding is commenced. I'll be explaining the citations again soon. Shukran!Jayzames (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the new material in the lead

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

This is not a complete list of problems, but it is a start.

1. It is apparently true, in some cases, that a) imposition of Sharia has led to controversy, violence, and possibly war. It is also true b) Sharia differs in some elements from the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It does not necessarily follow that c) the imposition of Sharia has led to unrest because it varies from the UDHR or employs punishments either corporal or capital in nature. Perhaps c) is correct, but there are no citations to this effect. a+b does not prove c in this case. This is a critical distinction.

Let's not be disingenuous and split hairs here. Sharia doesn't just differ from the UNDHR. Sharia differs from human rights, full stop. The UNDHR is just an internationally recognized reference document for human rights in international law provided for the purposes of defining what specifically falls under the scope of "human rights."
For nonbelievers in the reality based community, of course it's absurd to expect sharia, a historical system devised from the 7th to the 9th century to accord with "human rights," as human rights are a modern invention that cannot be found in any of the traditional religions. Sharia, at least for non-apologetic historians, represents the medieval values prevalent at the time of its creation. For those compelled to believe that sharia is the uncreated law of God valid for all time, however, (including the Muslim Brotherhood who proclaims it "the real effective way out of all sufferings and problems"), such variance with modern human rights inevitably causes the kinds of problems, objections, evasions, and intellectual contortions that we're seeing you make here. Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood, or conservative ulema like Muhammad Al-Munajid, as well as the 57 nation Organization of the Islamic Conference thus have to reject "human rights" altogether in favor of the revealed law; the rather small number of liberal Muslims like Bassam Tibi, Tarek Fatah, and (increasingly) Ziauddin Sardar on the other hand, have tended to reject the sharia/fiqh edifice altogether as a medieval human construction that can be jettisoned for all the modern reasons. Both of these are perfectly rational positions that follow from different premises, if you believe sharia is the divine uncreated law of god revealed to the prophet in the 7th century, made manifest in his sunnah, and then formalized in the Abbasid period, anything that is not sharia, including modern "human rights," can be nothing but bid'a and kufr. If you believe on the other handthat people have inherent rights just for being born as human beings, and that such rights have nothing to do with religion, than the other position is the one to take. The divergence between sharia and human rights, is ultimately quite real, and has had highly significant real world consequences.
As for the citations, Library of Congress Country Studies Sudan: "Opposition to the sharia, especially to the application of hudud (sing., hadd), or Islamic penalties, such as the public amputation of hands for theft, was not confined to the south and had been a principal factor leading to the popular uprising of April 1985 that overthrew the government of Jaafar an Nimeiri." This sounds pretty much like opposition to corporal punishments to me, unless you can come up with some other reason people might oppose the hudud punishments. The article said that imposition of sharia has been accompanied by controversy, violence, warfare etc. because sharia infringes on the human rights they have come to expect in the 20th/21st century under non-Islamic systems, it did not say that they read this directly from the UNDHR. The UNDHR is just provided (to explain again) as a standard reference document for the concept "human rights" in international law, if I didn't put in you'd say "citation needed," as you did for the unequal rights of women and Muslims. The discrepancies between sharia and human rights are real, and the sources establish that. The controversy from opponents to imposition of sharia based on such concepts of human rights, including from the Malaysian Bar Council, Sisters in Islam, etc. are also real, and the sources establish that. But anyway, I think you know this already, what really bothers you about this is that this information, though true, is included in the lead and detracts from its missionary value. To this point, I'll refer you to the Scientology article, which also mentions "notable controversies" in the lead, and Scientology, despite all its negative press, has not even become a major disputed issue in a full scale war. Mentioning these controversies is just stating the obvious.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

2. Heaping 5 or 10 citations on a proven point will not make other points around it more true. If it is true there is unrest during "imposition" of Sharia due to variance with UDHR or stoning, no quantity of citations can be provided regarding other points, such as controversy or violence is caused by Sharia, that will prove why it is caused. If the unrest is caused by variance with UDHR, we will need citations to that effect.

You've constantly complained about the "low quality" of the citations, or that I've misrepresented the source (of course without specifically showing how). I'm not sure if there is anything even coherent in "If it is true there is unrest during "imposition" of Sharia due to variance with UDHR or stoning, no quantity of citations can be provided regarding other points, such as controversy or violence is caused by Sharia, that will prove why it is caused." Exactly what do you think is going to prove that controversy, violence etc. ensuing after the imposition of sharia, which specifically states opposition to Islamic law, really has nothing to do with sharia and is completely random? The unrest is caused by infringements on their human rights and opposition to corporal punishment, for which the UNDHR is a standard reference, not some book that they're reading from. You're rather desperately grasping at straws here.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3. There are citations that have been repeatedly placed in the lead that are nothing more than text. They are editorials that have no link or citation associated with them.

If you're referring to this: "Orthodox interpretations of Sharia may conflict with Articles 2 (protection from religious and gender discrimination), 4 (abolition of slavery), 5 (protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment), 16 (equal rights in marriage and the dissolution thereof), 18 (freedom of religion, including freedom to proselytize and freedom to change religion), and 19 (freedom of expression)" I've already provided a link to the UNDHR with the relevant articles, but if you're going to complain about this one, it's easily linked to the text of the UNDHR.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

4. There are citations that have been placed in this text that link back to the paragraph they cite.

What? There are times when I think you speak English as a second language. Of course they link to the paragraph they cite, that's why they are citations.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

5. There are citations in the text that quote text, but if you follow the link it will take you to an article on the organization purported to have made the statement, rather than the statement itself.

6. There is text imbedded in some of these citations that is not contained in the the link that goes with them. Failed verification.

You do actually have to read the article to find the quoted text in question. In most web browsers you can do this with the "Find" command, ("Control F" on Windows, "Command F" on a Mac). For example, in the "Find" dialogue box, copy "Civil war was sparked in 1983 when the military regime tried to impose sharia law as part of its overall policy to "Islamicize" all of Sudan" and search for this text in the article on PBS, "Sudan: The Quick and the Terrible" and you will find it immediately. Likewise for all the rest.
If you can't be bothered to read the article or have some other problem with reading I don't know what I can do to help you. There are text to speech programs that come standard with most operating systems, the Mac in particular comes with many voices, and I've heard newer versions of Windows do as well.
BTW, and this is me at my most pedantic, "embedded" is spelled with an "e" not an "i."Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

7. The quality of these citations is extremely poor. Rather than improving the citations or eliminating the ones with errors, more are simply added.

Show specifically how the quality of these citations is extremely poor, you can use WP:IRS as a reference document (in fact, much the same way human rights activists use the UNDHR).Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

8. The new citations are for points already proven, no citations are provided for the points which have no citations.

I've already addressed specifically many times various complaints you've had, you've yet to respond and specifically point out how the citations do not support the text, if you want I will go through and do it again, but you're going to need to make a specific response if you're going to make this claim.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

9. The volume of citations, and the accompanying text, cloud the paragraph so completely it is difficult to find the places where it should be flagged. It is a dense fog of text.

Again, what? I would imagine anyone with sufficient reading comprehension in the English language to read this can distinguish between the alphabet and the superscript numbers that mark a footnote. You can legitimately complain about overlinking, but since you've complained so much about how awful the citations are, I'm just trying to humor you as much as you can, surely in a buffet there will be something that meets your criteria (though in reality we both know thatnothing will meet your criteria because you disagree with this paragraph for faith based, and not reality based reasons).Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

10. Any point in the paragraph which may be subject to dispute (in this case there are many) should be sourced with one or two high quality references. No more than 2 should be necessary. I have repeatedly pointed out where citations are needed, but none have been forthcoming.

Hence the numerous citations which pretty much state what is actually in the article. Point out specifically how they do not support the claims made, as I've asked you repeatedly.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

11. Citations should appear directly following the point they support. You cannot place a citation at the beginning of the paragraph and expect it to cover every assertion in the paragraph.

12. The best quality sources come from University presses. Reputable news organizations are useful for current events, but those links are not guaranteed to remain. The controversy over Sharia is topical, but it is not new. There are many good books out on the subject.

I can certainly use academic journals and books, but I do want the links to be publicly accessible so that even people like you can quote them when you object to them. I will be happy to include more citations that draw from hardcover books in addition to the existing citations.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

13. Page numbers. One should not be expected to read a book in order to verify a source.

Have put in the page numbers.Jayzames (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

These are a few of the problems I have with the paragraph as it generally appears on an ongoing basis. Later the obvious questions of what imposition means, how imposition occurs, whether it is imposition when the majority favors it, what other outcomes there are besides unrest, the relative importance of the method of execution (capital punishment is after all somewhat lethal regardless of the method employed), how imposition differs from introduction, whether Muslims around the world are really trying to introduce Sharia or just their Sharia codes of family law, which Sharia is being introduced, whether Christians and Animists in Nigeria and Sudan are being stoned and caned or just required to dress modestly and close their liquor shops etc. This topic area is way too big for the introduction of the article, and any attempt to take it all in with sweeping generalizations, poorly sourced references and spam is going to be met with criticism.

Aquib (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made my response, used publicly accessible sources, and provided quotes. You've failed to provide specific examples where the sources do not support the claims made, so I will be reverting your changes, as they are made on the basis of religious objections, not facts or Wikipedia policy. I will be happy though to take this to an RFC or some other dispute resolution process to reach an acceptable compromise, I'm sure there are areas where I can yield.Jayzames (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Working from this vesion of the article, the sources at [1] and [2] do not appear to support the claims that discrepancies exist between Sharia and international concepts of human rights, that (particularly with respect to the rights of women and non-Muslims) various infringements on those rights have resulted, or that Orthodox interpretations of Sharia may conflict with Articles 2 (protection from religious and gender discrimination), 4 (abolition of slavery), 5 (protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment), 16 (equal rights in marriage and the dissolution thereof), 18 (freedom of religion, including freedom to proselytize and freedom to change religion), and 19 (freedom of expression). Other sources (e.g., [3], [4]) might better support such assertions. It doesn't seem to me that this material belongs in the Lede. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In an attempt at appeasement, I will hereby attempt to address (again) the various template tags added by Aquib

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][not in citation given]

"The factors that provoked the military coup, primarily the closely intertwined issues of Islamic law and of the civil war in the south, remained unresolved in 1991. The September 1983 implementation of the sharia throughout the country had been controversial and provoked widespread resistance in the predominantly non-Muslim south ... Opposition to the sharia, especially to the application of hudud (sing., hadd), or Islamic penalties, such as the public amputation of hands for theft, was not confined to the south and had been a principal factor leading to the popular uprising of April 1985 that overthrew the government of Jaafar an Nimeiri."
The (second) civil war began when Islamic law was imposed on the south (not saying this is the only dispute, but clearly it is a major one). If this isn't good enough for you, I can remove it, but there are various other sources about Islamic law and the Sudan civil war already referenced, and I can certainly add more. I think we both know it's not the source per se that bothers you, it's the association between sharia and the civil war, even though it is true..

[13][14]due to discrepancies between Sharia and international concepts[15] of human rights (particularly [weasel words] with respect to the rights of women and non-Muslims)[citation needed][16][citation needed] that have resulted in various infringements on those rights[citation needed]. Contested [by whom?] aspects of

First I think you already know that sharia provides different rights to women and non-Muslims, so this is just being petty. I've already referenced the UNDHR and added a footnote about where specifically sharia may depart from the UNDHR. As for "by whom?", by people who oppose sharia obviously, and who clearly exist in significant numbers. The "infringements" have been documented in the sources, flogging in Malaysia, amputations, etc.

Sharia include the canonical hudud punishments (e.g. amputation, stoning, and lashing.[citation needed] Sharia's prohibitions on blasphemy and apostasy also depart from internationally recognized concepts of religious freedom.[citation needed] The OIC nations have thus released their own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that are in accordance with their interpretation of Sharia.

I'm sorry but are you seriously going to dispute that the hudud punishments include amputation, stoning, and lashing? I can get more citations for this, but you've already complained about overlinking. As far as "religious freedom," the international concepts thereof have already been referenced in the UNDHR.Jayzames (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, make your points on the talk page, I'll respond to these claims, but If you can't illustrate your points here it looks evasive.

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


I'm not sure you're making a coherent point here, by "in their countries," I assume you mean their non-Muslim countries of residence rather than their Muslim countries of origin or ancestry (for immigrants). Of course they're trying to bring about sharia law in their countries, to a much more limited degree. It said so quite clearly, and stated that Muslims have "attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs" in for example India. Nobody in their right mind is actually going to believe that they will ever start chopping off hands in a non-Muslim Western country like Britain or Canada just because they have a population of Muslim immigrants.


What? This is why I keep telling you to use the talk page.



I've already explained that they are disputing sharia for human rights, of which the UNDHR is only a reference document in international law. Let's not be disingenuous here. Islamic law does not assign equal status to non-Muslim minorities or women, and even with promises "not to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims," has imposed gender segregation that has affected non-Muslims as much as Muslims, has (in Nigeria) required non-Muslims to take religious classes in Islam etc., prohibits non-Muslims from engaging in proselytization while actively encouraging Muslim proselytization, etc etc. Non-Muslims in Sudan have not necessarily been spared from hudud punishments, not to mention the revival of that old sharia institution, the enslavement of captives. Are you going to be so ridiculous as to assert that the southern Sudanese are fighting for their right to liquor, extramarital sex, and obscenity?


The imposition of Islamic law is one of the root causes, namely since it does not assign equal rights to women and non-Muslims, which in the reality based community would fall under the category of "human rights," and regarding which a reference in international law can be found in Article 2 of the UNDHR, "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." You're rather desperately splitting hairs here.



In what alternate universe do you think people are not going to contest amputation, stoning, and lashing, and why do you need explanation as to why some people, in fact quite a lot of people will object to this, whether it happens to them personally, or whether, out of their common humanity, it happens to other people?

I think, in the reality based community "The factors that provoked the military coup, primarily the closely intertwined issues of Islamic law and of the civil war in the south, remained unresolved in 1991. The September 1983 implementation of the sharia throughout the country had been controversial and provoked widespread resistance in the predominantly non-Muslim south ... Opposition to the sharia, especially to the application of hudud (sing., hadd), or Islamic penalties, such as the public amputation of hands for theft, was not confined to the south and had been a principal factor leading to the popular uprising of April 1985 that overthrew the government of Jaafar an Nimeiri" is more than sufficient to establish that "imposition of sharia," particularly the imposition of hudud punishments, is "accompanied by warfare."



You already know perfectly that sharia does not allow blasphemy and apostasy, so this is just petty and bad faith. Since you've insisted, however, and since I left my book of Islamic criminal jurisprudence in a box somewhere, I'll use a source that we both know:

Reliance of the Traveler:

For Muslims: 8.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA) (page 595) o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. o8.3 If he is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (def: o17) (O: for arrogating the caliph’s prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties). o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)

....

@O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are: -1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah; -2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief; -3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three, or ``I am Allah-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief; -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace); -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1); -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat; -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it; -8-to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is; -9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger; -10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah, to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah; ... (n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following: -16- to revile the religion of Islam; -17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah; -18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens; -19-to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

For a non-Muslim

@O11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone). @O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people: -1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her; -2- conceals spies of hostile forces; -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam; -4- kills a Muslim; -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war

But really you already know this and are just pettifogging.



This shows that the OIC, the official organ for the Muslim nations of the world, has objections to "human rights" as set forth in the UNDHR, and that sharia constitutes the basis of these objections. What are you talking about here?


What's the objection to the word "impose"? It's no different than imposing taxes, or some other obligation, which sharia is.


The citations are exactly the same.

Nowhere do I make the exceptional claim that imposition of sharia and the accompanying human rights violations is the sole source of unrest or warfare or whatever problems exist, just the rather modest and mundane claim that "imposition of sharia has been accompanied by controversy, violence, and warfare," a fact that is pretty well documented. The real problem for you isn't that this is is not true, or trivial, or irrelevant, the problem is that it detracts from the article's missionary value.Jayzames (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC for sharia article edits

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments7 people in discussion

I have been trying to fix the sharia article after one user, "Jagged 85" introduced a great deal of questionable material into this and many other articles, check here to see what it used to look like. I think the user in question may now be the subject of a sock puppet investigation. Anyway, I've since then been trying to clean up and improve the spaminated law articles (mostly the Sharia article), with varying degrees of success. Another user, Aquib american muslim has objected to my changes, and has deleted material I wrote which he found "controversial," on grounds that controversial material should not be in the lead. Some time later, after reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) which states that: "The lead should ... define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies," I reinserted this material (fourth paragraph of the Sharia article), and he has again started to redelete, this time claiming that the material is uncited, poorly cited, misleading, misrepresentation of sources, etc. (along with some more comments about how I had perpetrated a "detestable hack job" etc.) I've asked him repeatedly to quote and point out specifically what is wrong with the sources on the talk page, and he has not yet done so, though I specifically used publicly available sources just for this reason, and have addressed his objections as much as was possible on the talk page.

Aquib has also objected to my removing the material found problematic as per the foregoing RFC for Jagged 85; which he believes is "from first-class minds in this area of knowledge."

To put it more succinctly, the issue at hand is whether "controversial" material should be put in the lead, and whether the material is supported by the citations used.

The contested paragraph is the fourth paragraph here as Aqiib has deleted it again,

I'm not really interested in protecting the page or blocking users (including getting myself blocked) but the constant reverts are a distraction. Jayzames (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


I first challenged this paragraph in April for it's lack of citations. It remained in place for several weeks, with no changes. When I began taking it down, citations were added for the first three assertions it makes. At first, the quality of these citations was very poor, but they have improved somewhat. However, this paragraph still has multiple problems, which I have identified in detail on numerous occasions, both on the talk page and by marking up the paragraph and summarizing each markup.

The first sentence of the paragraph begins by asserting imposition of Sharia has caused controversy, violence and even war. These three assertions (controversy, violence and war) have citations, although I question the use of the term imposition due to it's connotations.

Beyond this point, there are NO further citations in the paragraph supporting any other claims the paragraph makes. After these first three cited assertions, the first sentence goes on to claim Sharia has caused these tragedies "DUE TO DISCREPANCIES between Sharia and international concepts[16] of human rights." This claim requires scholarly citations from university presses, as do the remainder of the UNCITED CLAIMS the paragraph makes.

I am not saying these claims are true or false. I am saying they are uncited. Let me suggest an analogy for purposes of illustration. The "War Against Drugs" has also caused controversy, violence and even warfare. In fact, it is hard to imagine any issue causing a war without causing controversy and violence. But what is this DUE TO? Is it due to the huge profits to be made selling illegal drugs? Is it due to poverty and other conditions? Is it due to the fact the US is trying to stop illegal drugs while simultaneously buying everything available on the illegal market? I don't know the answer, but I may have opinions. But whoever claims to know what this war is DUE TO should provide some CITATIONS to back up their claim.

I have been waiting for citations for some time now. I do not understand why there are no citations for these claims, unless they are unsupportable. If this is all clear and factual, let's see some citations for the rest of the claims made by this controversial paragraph inserted into the lead of this article.

Aquib (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The challenge Aquib is referring to is here. Aquib's explanation for deleting the paragraph in question is here, stating: "Controversial topics do not belong in the lead. If they cannot be explained in context, they are misleading."
That imposition of sharia is controversial is true on the face of it, I think attempts to claim otherwise are either apologetic or in bad faith, or good faith in terms of missionary intent but bad faith in terms of real world accuracy (see pious fraud). As far as the rest, nowhere did I make the exceptional claim that sharia is the only cause of violence or warfare, just that it had been accompanied by such, and that it is indeed one of the major disputed issues in the violence and warfare in question. The sources, in my opinion do indeed support the claim made, you don't agree, hence the dispute.
I'm a bit too tired at the moment to explain for the nth time why unequal rights for non-Muslims, and imposition of hudud punishments might in the non-apologetics world be considered "violations of human rights," and might even be controversial enough to spark intercommunal violence, suffice it to say that such explanations can be found in the foregoing comments. I might try again tomorrow, and likewise with the rather inane claim that controversy and violence about the "war on drugs" is not actually controversy and violence about the war on drugs.Jayzames (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have dropped Sharia from my watch list. You guys have done a good job so far while there is more to do I suggest that you two take a break from here and edit elsewhere for awhile. Don't let this page burn you out. This is a hard page to edit for a number of reasons.J8079s (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue is quite simple. I am asking for citations to back up the claims made in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with that. It's World Cup week.Jayzames (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this problem can probably be resolved with mere rephrasing to get rid of some questionable language, though more citations would be good. perhaps something like:

The adoption of Sharia law by predominantly Muslim states has caused international controversy due to discrepancies between Sharia and international concepts of human rights. In particular, canonical hudud punishments such as lashing, amputation, and stoning do not conform to established European and American ideals about the treatment of citizens, and the restrictions on rights given to women and non-Muslims opposes standards of equality and religious freedom held in the West. The OIC nations have released a separate declaration on Human Rights that better fits the interpretation of Sharia law. The adoption of Sharia has also led to violence in several states, particularly where large segments of the population are non-Muslim or practice less restrictive forms of Islam.

Would that work for all parties concerned? --Ludwigs2 17:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)]
This works for me, with the caveat that 1) violent and armed resistance to sharia imposition has tended to be intercommunal, i.e. between Muslims and non-Muslims, and not so much between Islamist Muslims and secularist Muslims who practice less restrictive forms of Islam." I will, however, have to read up more on the various civil wars in North Africa in countries (Somalia, Algeria etc.) that are virtually entirely Muslim. 2) "Human rights" (and "democracy") while clearly European in origin, have been readily accepted by numerous non-Western countries (India, Taiwan, South Korea) despite their foreign origin. Where they have not (e.g. Burma, China in the 80's, possibly Thailand now) activists protest in the name of human rights and democracy without any reference to it being a "Western" concept. The concept of "human rights," is now no longer limited to the West, so that part might be amended.
I'll wait till the games are over and see if there are other opinions, and if not then I will upload the paragraph, mutatis mutandis. Thanks so much for your input, I think it's much better phrased this way.Jayzames (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, Ludwigs2. Your version, exactly as written, does indeed address my concerns. Aquib (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
well, if everyone involved in the dispute can agree that they like this, I'd suggest you all try editing a version in, and if it sticks you can just end the RfC by removing the tag. no need to wait out the full span of request. do you want me to do it (as a neutral party)? --Ludwigs2 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Will get to it when they're done in Joburg.
The Jagged 85 hot mess, alas, is still not over, and has now expanded into use of proxy server sock puppets.Jayzames (talk) 05:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War)[12][13][14][15]". Statements should not have multiple sources but good sources. Listing numerous examples of something and forming a conclusion is synthesis. Another problem with the sentence is that it is unclear whether the violence results from enforcing Sharia, or from resistance. It should also be clear who resists Sharia - are they Muslims or Christians. Also, it is implies that implimentation of Sharia means the same thing in each case. Allowing Muslims to agree to resolve civil legal disputes among themselves using Sharia is likely to provoke less of a reaction than if they impose the law on others. TFD (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have too much work today so I can't get into this into too much detail, but please point out what is wrong with the sources? AFAIC, they are good, and certainly a lot better and more easily verified than what used to be in here, which you can see here. You can also check here and here for what some of the issues in the original article were like and why the user who made these edits might have been problematic.



I think it hardly needs explaining that in the late 20th and 21st century, a system of law that demands amputation and stoning as penalties, and that imposes capital punishment for apostasy and blasphemy might be "controversial," and might be even resisted violently. It's not an exceptional claim at all, a rather modest one at that, and there is no synthesis. The controversy, if you check the sources cited, is real. The violence and the threat of violence, likewise, is real. Every prominent person who has publicly apostatized or blasphemed, including figures like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Salman Rushdie requires a contingent of bodyguards. Even Dutch Labour politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, who is a practicing Muslim and not an apostate, also requires a contingent of full time bodyguards. Where are you getting "synthesis" from this? I think the best test as to whether this satisfies verifiability is the thought experiment of going to a sharia country, maybe Afghanistan or Iran or Sudan or Saudi Arabia or Somalia, and doing something like openly preaching the gospel or committing adultery in front of four Muslim male witnesses, and then seeing what happens to you. If you believe that you can come back safe and sound then we can remove these claims in good faith.

Second, as far as "who" resists the imposition of sharia, it varies depending on what country it is, and can encompass a wide array of constituencies, including non-Muslims, women's groups, and liberal Muslims, and the sources attempt to convey some of the diversity of that opposition, which included a Muslim womens' groups. Since it is "controversial" with a broad and varied range of people, there is nothing wrong with saying it is "controversial," anymore than saying the right to abortion is "controversial."

Finally, no sharia is not the same in every case, but I think the sources adequately show that certain aspects, including hudud punishments and apostasy laws, are part of sharia in a fairly wide range of countries, and that when Islamists come to power and promise to impose sharia, that this is in fact what you will get. If you believe that hudud punishments or apostasy laws are really a marginal aspect of sharia advocated by a tiny extremist minority of those wanting to implement sharia, you're mistaken, and I think the sources used show that. There are places, Canada and England for example, where hudud punishments are totally out of the question and the social outrage would be severe, and these are the places where activists are much more modestly asking for sharia only to adjudicate personal matters, which is also stated. Let's not be ridiculous about sharia and pretend that they will be handing out candy and flowers once it's imposed.Jayzames (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's quite simple, as per WP:Verifiability. Claims of the sort made in the Jayzames version of this paragraph require quality, scholarly citations, preferably with page numbers and from a university press. The source must directly support the material in question. Verifiability, NPOV and "No original research" are the core content policies on Wikipedia. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. I have been complaining about this paragraph since April. Aquib (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering exactly what this is about, here is the paragraph Jayzames is trying to insert into the lead of the article.

Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy,[2][3][4][5] violence,[6][7][8][9][10][11] and even warfare (cf. Second Sudanese Civil War) [12][13][14][15] due to discrepancies between Sharia and international concepts[16] of human rights (particularly with respect to the rights of women and non-Muslims)[17] that have resulted in various infringements on those rights. Contested aspects of Sharia include the canonical hudud punishments (e.g. amputation, stoning, and lashing). Sharia's prohibitions on blasphemy and apostasy also depart from internationally recognized concepts of religious freedom. The OIC nations have thus released their own Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam that are in accordance with their interpretation of Sharia.

Here is a link to the last version he inserted at paragraph 4 of the lead. If you follow the citation links, you will find there is not a valid citation anywhere in the paragraph at or beyond the words "DUE TO" in the first sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharia&oldid=367889414
Aquib (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Aquib (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
English and American laws contained many severe penalties, including slow roasting over a fire, being hung, drawn and quartered, burning at the stake, etc., and the civil law jurisdictions had even more severe punishments and many of these were for blasphemy and victimless crimes. Today, the U. S. has a greater proportion of its population in prison than any country on earth. Does that mean English and Civil law are evil or do we see these as aberrations of fundamentally good legal systems? Much of the opposition to Sharia stems from misunderstanding. Sharia is based on the Old Testament, which itself is revered in Jewish and Christian society. Of course the use of maximum penalties under Sharia law is just as rare as it is in Europe. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" normally means that one compensates the victim adequately for the loss of an eye or tooth, not that the offender actually loses it. TFD (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Working from this vesion of the article, the sources at [5] and [6] do not appear to support the claims that discrepancies exist between Sharia and international concepts of human rights, that (particularly with respect to the rights of women and non-Muslims) various infringements on those rights have resulted, or that Orthodox interpretations of Sharia may conflict with Articles 2 (protection from religious and gender discrimination), 4 (abolition of slavery), 5 (protection from cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment), 16 (equal rights in marriage and the dissolution thereof), 18 (freedom of religion, including freedom to proselytize and freedom to change religion), and 19 (freedom of expression). Other sources (e.g., [7], [8]) might better support such assertions. It doesn't seem to me that this material belongs in the Lede. (I inadvertantly inserted a comment similar to the foregoing into another section -- it seems to fit there as well, so I've left that in and inserted this similar comment here) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
First to TFD: Notice how you have glossed over the past tense. Nobody in England or America is actually proposing to reintroduce these laws or seriously believes these laws (or Old Testament laws) should be applied today. This is not the case in Muslim countries; the Muslim Brotherhood, the ancestor of most of today's Islamist movements, quite frankly states that sharia, hudud and all, is "the real effective way out of all sufferings and problems, both on the internal front and the external one - be these political, economic, social or cultural." Sharia and its corporal punishments are thus, not a historical curiosity, in contrast to the examples you've provided. Such comparisons between the two systems might have been apt centuries ago, but please let's not be disingenuous and make a false moral equivalence between the American criminal justice system, flawed though it may be, and the Islamic one. Again, given a choice of jurisdictions for a criminal offense (say for theft of a car), and where evidence against you is equally strong in both systems (possession of the stolen car in question and your fingerprints on the steering wheel in the U.S., two Muslim male eyewitnesses in Saudi Arabia) please honestly answer the question of where you would rather be tried.
In fact, the proportion of persons incarcerated in the United States, true and disturbing as it is, is completely irrelevant to whether or not imposing sharia has incited controversy or violence; it's not even a tu quoque fallacy because the two things being compared, incarceration and mutilation, don't remotely begin to establish an equivalent degree of "unfairness" or "human rights violations" between the two systems. A rather large number of people have had their limbs amputated, are you going to seriously claim that this lifelong physical disability is really no worse than a few years jail time? Hudud punishments, moreover, have fallen very disproportionately on the poor. Some 200 people underwent amputation immediately upon imposition of Islamic law by Nimeiri in the Sudan, these were mostly displaced refugees; one man in Nigeria had his hand amputated for stealing a cow. Finally, where on earth do you get "evil" from? The claim made is that sharia differs significantly from human rights as found elsewhere in the world, and that imposition of sharia has been followed by disputes and violence, a claim that is I think fairly well supported; "evil" is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. One can, as a believer, quite legitimately claim (and Islamists do) that "human rights" are an impious Western invention, and that it is "evil" to rule by anything other than god's law. Allah (SWT) told Ibrahim AS ( Abraham for non-Muslims) to perform human sacrifice on his son Ismail AS (Isaac for non-Muslims); whether this seemed capricious or cruel mattered little compared to Ibrahim's submission and obedience to Allah (SWT). The same argument goes for sharia.
As far as Aquib's complaint goes, the sources are public, again quote and show how specifically the sources contradict or do not support the claim made, i.e. that imposition of sharia has been accompanied by controversy, violence, etc. It's a fairly modest claim and I think the sources support that claim. Anyway, there are always many more sources, a trip to the library next week should suffice to establish the claims being made with more academic sources. I think it's clear that Aquib's real complaint is that including such information, though verifiable and from perfectly adequate sources (far better than many of the others already used in the article; Aquib has for example filled the article with lots of very dated and unrelated apologia for Islamism from the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Islam- a book which mentions sharia only on a single page) makes sharia "look bad" by modern liberal human rights standards. This, however, is only to people who believe in "human rights," and not sharia, a distinction that is even recognized by the Muslim governments in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Similar motivations have caused Nigeria to [ban the use of online chat to discuss the penalty of amputation,] because it would cause a "mockery of the Sharia system as negative issues will be discussed." This makes perfect sense from a religious standpoint, but I don't think it cuts it for an encyclopedia.Jayzames (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
To Boracay Bill: I'm just curious, how are corporal punishments and capital punishment for apostasy etc. not in conflict with human rights? Amputations have indeed occurred, are these not in conflict with human rights? The UNDHR is just there to show specifically what is meant by human rights in international law, other refs are there that show the discrepancies, they are in and belong in the hudud article for one, but if you insist, I'll put refs from academic sources to the Islamic penalties. I'm just curious if you just don't know these things about Islamic law or if you seriously believe that not allowing freedom of religion or performing amputations on thieves is not actually a violation of human rights as understood in the rest of the world?Jayzames (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue a POV point here, I'm trying to provide input which might contribute to improvement of the article (novel concept, that). My input was in aid of trying to identify sources which better supported the assertions than the sources which I found previously cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Just some basic examples:
Reliance of the Traveler:
Chapter O14.0: The Penalty for Theft
14.1
A person's right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:
(a) has reached puberty;
(b) is sane;
(c) is acting voluntarily;
(d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A: at the market price current) at the time of the theft:
(e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time for safeguarding similar articles (def: o14.3);
(f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: o14.2(3) ) as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.
If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: o17). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (O: by an act of God) but before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated. After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal's life).
UNDHR: Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Reliance of the Traveler: Chapter O8.0: Apostasy from Islam (Ridda)
O8.1
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
UNDHR: Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Actually Article 18 was one of the main reasons why the OIC felt compelled to create its own Islamic version of the UNDHR based on sharia. Jayzames (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Your use of the terms "Islamist" and "Allah" show that you lack neutrality. The reason for brutality and human rights violations in Muslim countries has nothing to do with their basic law but with the implimentation. Corporal punishment continued in common law countries until at least the 1960s and the U. S. until recently executed children and retarded people. In some states up to 1/3 of inmates on death row were innocent and the legal system is more punitive of poor people. In fact the U. S. runs prisons like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay where prisoners are held without any access to legal process and are tortured without judicial approval. Yet no one advocates replacing the basic law of the U. S., but rather they see this as an aberration. I do not know what the reference to Abraham is about. The story is about how one should follow God's command even if it violates the law. It is biased to use the phrase "controversy and violence" because they are two different things. Narrow-minded people who object to immigrants disapprove of them settling their disputes according to Sharia. But that is different from a Muslim nation terrorizing a Christian minority. In fact the Muslim world has always accepted the right of Jews and Christians to follow their own customs. The level of human rights abuses in Muslim countries has nothing to do with their basic laws or religion any more than they do in Christian countries. By the same logic you could write that U. S. attempts to introduce western laws into Iraq and countless other places were controversial and led to violence. TFD (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Notice too that most Muslim countries did not execute anyone last year, (see: Use of capital punishment by nation), and mostly they were for offenses that would be considered serious in the West. In fact only four countries, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen accounted for the overwhelming majority of executions in Muslim countries. TFD (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what? How does use of the term Islamist or Allah (SWT) compromise neutrality, as we are talking about Islamic law? And where are you getting "anti-immigrant" from, I've been an immigrant to a few countries myself (including two Muslim ones) myself. We're talking about the basic law here, which clearly says "the hands of thieves are to be cut off," you don't seem to get why some might object to having this rendered official. I know the rules of evidence, and I know perfectly well that what happens in reality, both in premodern Muslim states and now, can differ quite substantially, both for better and for worse, from what's on paper (it was generally actually worse than official sharia in some respects during premodern Ottoman and Abbasid times due to less regulated and transparent institutions like the shurta, or police, and mazalim, or temporal courts gradually encroaching on the authority of the qadi). It's also not just narrow minded people that have been opposed to the introduction of sharia tribunals in Western countries, I know Tarek Fatah, a liberal Muslim in Canada, has been vehemently opposed to this, as well as the Muslim Canadian Congress, and there could hardly be a group called Muslims Against Sharia if opposition to sharia was strictly on racist grounds. I'd be interested in seeing you find something to show that drastic corporal punishments like mutilation continued into the 1960's or that the US executed children; I think you're getting into tin foil hat territory, and none of this is even relevant to whether sharia and human rights differ from each other or whether controversy ensues when it's imposed, claims that I think the evidence makes it difficult to disprove. The basic law has been quoted from the sources, delineating specifically what the punishments are (irrespective of how often they are implemented in practice), if you think those punishments do not contravene human rights, I'd like to hear how. How did this become a diatribe about the US criminal justice system? I wouldn't for one, object at all to saying that the US criminal justice system is controversial, that's just stating the obvious, the same goes for Islamic law. If you're so confident about the soundness of Islamic law to protect your human rights, again please visit a nice sharia country and preach atheism.Jayzames (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


BTW, the reference regarding the Binding of Isaac is to show that God is to be obeyed, full stop. I don't know where you're getting the idea that God simply told Abraham to break the law, if he wanted to do that he could have told Abraham to commit adultery instead. It is a test of faith, that God's order is to be obeyed no matter if you find the order irrational or cruel, and the same reasoning goes for sharia and its punishments, no matter if some parts of it may seem, by modern standards, cruel. I also used the name Ibrahim (AS) because the Muslim version of the story is different and involves a different son, I don't know what you're trying to imply about the use of the terms Allah or Islamist.Jayzames (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the strange little diversion as to use of capital punishment by country, you can see here that of the top 10 executors of capital punishment in 2009, seven were Muslim, though really I don't think this sort of tu quoque argument is germane to the issue either way.Jayzames (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Also one more technicality, since Abraham precedes Moses, who brought down the Mosaic law from the mountain, he precedes the formalization of Jewish law, and really couldn't be breaking the law, as there was not yet any set of laws to break.Jayzames (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Islamist" is a Fox News type term like "homocide bomber" or "Islamofascism". "Allah" is the Arab word for God. Would you actually say that Arab Christians or Jews believe in "Allah"? And do you actually think that Muslims against Sharia which is against "Islamic extremists or Islamofascists"[9] is anything but a website? (I never mentioned racism btw - fyi Islam is not a race.) Fatah's Muslim Canadian Congress had 300 members before the split - it is insignificant. No one said that "God simply told Abraham to break the law" but to "follow God's command even if it violates the law".
Here are the sources for the "tin foil hat" theories:
  • February 28, 2005 "With the Roper v. Simmons Supreme Court ruling abolishing the execution of child offenders.... Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstituted in the United States, 22 child offenders have been executed."[10]
  • Deleware had its last public whipping in 1952[11], This article shows that corporal punishment was administered in Canada during the 1960s, and the Isle of Man had its last flogging in 1976. The sweatbox, a torture where prisoners could die from heat or dehydration was used in the Southern states until the 1960s.
Nothing I can say will influence your opinions. However the sources of your opinions provide a very narrow and partisan view of the world, including Sharia, and articles must provide greater weight to mainstream views and little if any to fringe views.
FYI, Abraham was bound to follow the covenant of Noah, set down in Genesis 9 which, among other things, forbids murder. The point I wanted to make though was that God's command to Abraham was not part of the law. Sharia does not require Muslims to sacrifice their first born sons.
TFD (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "Islamist" per se is an inflammatory term, and I think most of the world can in fact agree that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood or Jemaah Islamiyah or influential thinkers like Sayyid Qutb or Abul Ala Maududi are in fact "Islamist," without being Fox News viewers. To say that "Islamist" is inflammatory is a pretty flimsy claim. You're assuming that I'm some xenophobic right wing Fox watcher and really you couldn't be further off the mark if you tried. I did say I've lived in two Muslim countries where "Islamist" is commonly used, and none of those who used it were Fox news viewers. Having lived there, I know personally that yes, imposing sharia or the threat thereof can get a lot of people (gays, more liberated women etc.) very worried, and that if you think it's really no less tolerant than secular law, it just needs to be "implemented right," you are miles away from reality.
Re: punishments, I did say "drastic." I suppose it's a matter of degree, but whipping is nowhere near as draconian as amputation, and it's still past tense. No one seriously proposes that this is the answer to today's crime problems, and I think people might even not object to sharia if it just stopped at whipping. Even Singapore canes criminal offenders, and while it bothers lots of Singapoerans I know, I don't think it's ever going to attract nearly the condemnation that amputation or stoning will.
I didn't realize you meant juvenile offenders, not eugenics. That's also practiced in Muslim countries by the way, but ultimately this is all a matter for an article on capital punishment in the U.S. and the practices of the US are really irrelevant as to whether sharia diverges from human rights. As far as the Isle of Man, I'm not sure where you're getting this, is this a criminal punishment or something in school or the military?
Of course sharia doesn't require people to sacrifice their first born sons, that's why the Abraham story is a parable, that God is to be obeyed even if it seems cruel or goes against your personal feelings. Following God's command would actually be following the law, if the law is not human made but god made, like, well, sharia. The rationale for sharia punishments works the same way.
Tarek Fatah and the Muslim Canadian Congress is just an example that in fact not every Muslim is monolithically clamoring for sharia, a claim which you appear to be insisting on. Nahdlatul Ulama, a very large Indonesian Muslim organization, at least under Gus Dur, opposed making sharia the law of Indonesia. Progressive Muslim thinkers, including Bassam Tibi, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, and Ziauddin Sardar have all rejected to one degree or another, sharia as anything but a personal moral code, or at the very least, called for drastically reforming sharia so it can be a system that everybody can comfortably coexist with.
Finally, yes, of course Arab Christians or Jews believe in Allah, because Allah, from "the god" is the same god as "YHWH" or "Jehovah" or "Lord." The word for "God" in Arabic is "Allah," used by Arabic speaking Christians and Jews equally as much as Muslims. I have no idea what you're trying to portray me as, but I'm certainly not trying to make Islam seem alien from Judaism and Christianity because I know perfectly well that Allah (SWT) is the same god.
So ultimately, what is the point you are making? That severe punishments were imposed in the West? Past tense, and still doesn't make their imposition in Islamic countries in the present day sit any better for those who want human rights, see tu quoque. You've said there is nothing wrong in the "basic law" but the fact is the punishments are in the books, and they are still being enforced. If you're trying to project the idea that objections to sharia on human rights grounds are really nothing more than racism or xenophobia or neo-colonialism, I don't think the facts support your assertion either, people in Muslim countries are objecting, and not just in the West.Jayzames (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
My point is that your approach to this topic is not neutral. You are using terminology that is normally used by a narrow ideological group, and you are exaggerating the extremes of Sharia as well as the Islamic opposition to it. You see the brutality of justice in some Muslim countries as a result of their religion and basic law, when Christian countries have shown equal brutality. Saddam Hussein abolished Sharia law, but his regime had one of the worst records of human rights abuses in the Muslim world. The worst two countries today, Saudi Arabia and Iran, are repressive because of their fear of internal dissent, rather than their religious views. The key to reducing these abuses is not insistence that they adopt western legal codes, but to ensure they conform to international human rights standards. Some Sharia countries have done this. While the U. S. Supreme Court is to be commended for ending the execution of children and retarded adults, the U. S. could set a better example through ending the remaining abuses in its justice system, as all other developed nations have. (BTW - I was referring to corporal punishment as a judicial punishment.) TFD (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Um no, not really, I wrote most of the legal proceedings section, and I don't think it's POV, it's just encyclopedic, I even mentioned why non-Muslims might prefer sharia courts. For the same mundanely encyclopedic reasons, I have put in these issues, which are quite significant and worthy of mention. You don't seem to understand that drastic punishments and apostasy laws are not the "extremes of sharia," they are the mainstream (which you would know had you ever lived in a Muslim country), and they are what comes when sharia is made the official law of the land. There are numerous examples from multiple countries where this is actually what has happened, and multiple sources do indeed confirm this. The "brutal" punishments are imposed under the authority of Islam, because they come from the sources; the ways proposed to get around this by progressive Muslims include that mentioned by An-Naim, a drastic reformation and rethinking of sharia, or as Bassam Tibi and Ziauddin Sardard propose, a recognition that sharia/fiqh is a largely manmade construction and does not necessarily have divine authority. If all these harsh punishments and human rights violations really had nothing to do with sharia (a claim that is completely untenable in light of the sources quoted), and all these human rights issues are just an incidental byproduct of repressive regimes as you claim, surely somewhere out there there would be a place with sharia that didn't have these human rights issues? My personal view and that profered by a number of writers, even by more conservative ones like Tariq Ramadan, is that while people really aren't inherently cruel and do not actually want to cut off limbs, hudud punishments are highly symbolic and prove that a government is dead serious about Islam, serious enough to maim people for it. Enacting hudud punishments can establish the "Islamic" credentials of a state, i.e. the more they depart from Western norms, the more authentically "Islamic" they can appear to be. All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-immigrant xenophobia.
Iran is not much of an example, they had a revolution in 1979 specifically in the name of religion. This had nothing to do with suppressing internal dissent, the internal dissent was what took over the country. As noted by Bernard Lewis, one of Khomeini's main grievances against the shah was that his White Revolution reforms, allowed the theoretical possibility (which never actually happened) of non-Muslims exercising judicial or political authority over Muslims, an objection he got from sharia.
As far as Christian countries or the US, again, tu quoque arguments are irrelevant, this article is not about Christianity or the US, and all your examples are in the past tense, which is not true for sharia. As far as Saddam Hussein, the fact that he was repressive likewise doesn't make sharia into a garden of tolerance, you're acting as if a Baath regime and the Taliban are the only choices. One can note that China executes vast numbers of people every year under non-Islamic law, that doesn't automatically make Saudi Arabia or Sudan into a human rights paragon by comparison.
Nobody is suggesting that Western law be imposed, you're making a straw man. Just drawing attention to the differences and disagreements, which are pretty significant.
I will also agree that the key to reducing these "abuses" (and let's remember they are not actually "abuses" by Islamic standards, you're reading your own views into this) is conforming to international human rights standards, which, surprise surprise, differ rather markedly from sharia, so much so that the Organization of Islamic Conference felt compelled to draft their own criteria for what are acceptable human rights standards. "International human rights standards" are not sharia.
Finally, objecting to the word "Islamist" as inflammatory is just silly. Not even close to everyone who uses the word "Islamist" is a right wing Fox News viewer, it's commonly used in Muslim countries by Muslims to refer to the religiously based opposition. You're projecting again as if the US based language of Fox News applies throughout the entire world.Jayzames (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not following the logic properly. I am not making a tu quoque argument, merely stating that it is not the basic law that leads to brutal punishments but the implimentation of the law. Any legal system can be brutal if it has cruel punishments and more importantly if they are enforced. The perfect example is the U. S. that executes a higher percentage of its population than most Sharia countries, imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country, and tortures and kills some prisoners that it holds without trial. Many Islamic scholars do not consider stoning, etc. to be part of Sharia, pointing out that it is not found in the Koran and is based on tradition rather than written law, for example the Assembly of Qom Seminary Scholars and Researchers. The term "Islamism" is used by people like Daniel Pipes, Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz. (See: Middle East Forum.) I suppose you consider that mainstream, and believe that Islam is a threat to the West. TFD (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but.. "when Christian countries have shown equal brutality" is pretty much the standard version of tu quoque. US treatment of POWs isn't even remotely relevant to sharia and its criminal penalties, treatment of minorities or women, and punishments for apostates. There is surely an article about Guantanamo or US treatment of POWS on Wikipedia, and that belongs there. Whether or not the US does this or that doesn't make the plain fact of the marked divergence between sharia and international human rights law any less true or relevant. The famous punishments are both on the books, and enforced, making them more than a historical curiosity. As far as the US executing a higher percentage of its prisoners per capita, I don't think even that claim stands up either "sharia" countries like Kuwait or Oman notably rank higher than the US, the ones that don't, like Sudan and Somalia, may not be together enough to even keep adequate records. Doesn't really affect sharia's standing vis a vis human rights either way. FWIW, I personally would prefer that no prisoner be executed.


Any legal system (or actually any lack of a legal system) can be brutal, but how many other legal systems still prescribe amputation? How would you "properly implement" this "basic law" so it doesn't lead to the unpleasant consequence?
From "Crimes and Punishments under Islamic Law"
The punishment for theft is prescribed in the Holy Qur'an thus: "As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands as punishment by way of example from Allah for their crime. And Allah is exalted in power." As reported in Sahih al Bukhari and Muslim this punishment (of cutting the hand) was practised by the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) Himself. He cut off a thief's hand and also ordered the amputation of a female thief's hand."
The four major schools of Sunni Islamic law all agree that the right hand comes off first, the Hanafi school differs in that the next theft requires the amputation of the left foot, the other schools differ in demanding the left hand; all agree that the punishment is amputation, and this is mainstream orthodoxy in sharia. You're way off the mark about "many Islamic scholars," I've never heard of the Assembly of Qom (being more familiar with the Sunni majority), but the usual punishments still go on in Iran.
And finally, the last little attempt at a "neocon" smear (now that is a genuinely inflammatory word, at least among my circle) is really some remarkably strenuous projecting. I've lived among Muslims (granted very progressive and secular ones) and no I don't consider Islam to be a threat to the West, an allegation which is doubly absurd because I don't live there or feel terribly invested in its survival. You've confused me with whoever you've gotten into arguments with before. The fact that "Islamist" is a word used by David Horowitz or Daniel Pipes hardly makes it automatically an ad hominem, it's quite liberally used by Bassam Tibi too, an Arab Muslim and thinker on the Arab left, who got his training at the Frankfurt School under the direct tutelage of Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer themselves. A more celebrated neo Marxist pedigree hardly exists in the academic world. In short, no, use of the word "Islamist" does not automatically make one a neocon.Jayzames (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the one who brought up the term "neoconservative", I was merely referring to the leading anti-Islamists. (Horowitz and Hitchens were Marxist too.) The fact you are unaware of the Assembly of Qom shows your lack of interest in reading anything other than anti-Islamist writers. Notice the article from Amnesty International you provided mentions that Iran has had a moritorium (not always enforced) on stoning since 2002. That was a result ot the Assembly's interpretation of Sharia. May I suggest that the anti-Islamist scholars see the world in black and white terms (the clash of civilizations) and you should read a wider range of views. TFD (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am having difficulty following your "neocon" comment. It appears to be:
  • (1) Criticising neoconservatives is an argument ad hominem.
  • (2) People who use the term "Islamism" are neoconservatives.
  • (3) Therefore objecting to the use of "Islamism" is an argument ad hominem.
TFD (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No (and I think this is unmistakable) you just have repeatedly tried to make me out as some xenophobic Fox News watcher akin to (neocons) David Horowitz or Daniel Pipes solely for the use of the word "Islamist." Particularly with the rather clumsy and over the top straw man of "I suppose you believe Islam is a threat to the West." You might as well have said "I suppose you want to kill all the unborn children," or "I suppose you want to club baby harp seals." You couldn't be off by more, but if it causes too much cognitive dissonance to you, then maybe you're better off sticking to the familiar patterns.
I know that Iran supposedly suspended (not abolished) stoning. Obviously didn't take. Personally, as a human being, I'm more concerned with the fate of the stonees than with defending or excusing Iran's practices; your priorities may of course differ.
Of course I'm interested in (politically progressive) "anti-Islamist" writers. And? Should I be reading Sayyid Qutb and Maududi instead of Bassam Tibi? Tibi, by the way, still refers extensively to Horkheimer in his work, though I'm starting to think that references to the Frankfurt School might be going a tiny bit over your head. What "pro-Islamist" writers are there that aren't actually, well, Islamists? And for the record, while I know who Horowitz and Pipes are, I've read virtually nothing of either, and couldn't name any book that they have ever written.
Anyway, this is always fun for me, but there's lots to do today and particularly, there are games that I'm really interested in seeing. I'll be taking the good advice of someone to take a break, and put up what was suggested by the other editor after the World Cup's done.Jayzames (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is patronizing to say that a reference to the Frankfurt School "might be going a tiny bit over your head". Of course you are not the typical Fox News watcher, but you cannot accept that there are any positions between Qtub and "progressive Muslims". TFD (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of homosexuals?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Come on, that might offend people - both Muslims and homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.2.241 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Spun off a new article regarding Sharia's dhimma and non-Muslims

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have taken an interest in the subject of Dhimmitude and the dhimma contract, and moved Hodgson's and Glenn's material on this subject into a new article - "History of the dhimma." I need additional sources.

I believe we have the "Sharia and non-Muslims" subject covered well enough - for now - with what remains here in Sharia. I plan to remove the last portion of the last remaining paragraph in the "non-Muslim" section of the Sharia article. The remaining 2 sentences can be incorporated as the last sentence of the prior paragraph. When that change is accomplished, the last paragraph of "non-Muslims" will appear as below. Suggestions and comments are appreciated. Regards, Aquib (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pagans are not afforded the rights and protections of the dhimma contract. Nevertheless, according to the Quran and classic Sharia, no person can be compelled to convert to Islam - regardless of their religion or lack of religion. Sharia attributes different legal rights to these different groups; in practice, this consists of less rights for non-Muslims.[191] Aquib (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to reorganize the sections near the end of the article. We have civil law as a subcat of common law, a law parallels section plus a separate law comparisons section, modern topical info under comparisons etc. In addition, some of the categories have been emptied out. It needs cleaning up and reorganizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquib american muslim (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Are Hindus considered people of the book?

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved
 – The passages which were objected to have now been modified so that the objections no longer apply. David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reference recently cited in support of the claim that Hindus are regarded as a people of the book does not support it. The relevent text from the reference is:

"The extent of any aggressive form of jihad is controlled, moreover, by another well-entrenched doctrine of islamic thought, which is that of a special status accorded to Jews and Christians (and hindus are assimilated to them), the other 'people of the book', sharing the same God with muslims.249"

Footnote 249 cites another source, as follows:

"Pearl and Menski, Muslim Family Law (1998) at 7 (notably on hindu assimilation, this being possible, presumably, because of hindu religious texts and hindu tolerance of multiple, single gods, as to which, see below, Ch.8, Time and Brahman);"

It's not at all clear to me precisely what the parenthetical comment "and hindus are assimilated to them" here means. Presumably, it means at least that Hindus have been accorded the same, or similar, legal status as Jews and Christians, but I see no reason to conclude that H. Patrick Glenn, the author of the reference, meant to assert that they were also referred to as a "people of the book".

Moreover, it would appear from another of the references cited in the article, Bernard Lewis's The Jews of Islam, that the extension of special status to Hindus was a later development which was not observed immediately after the initial expansion of Islam. On p.18 of this reference Lewis writes:

"Buddhists and Hindus in Asia, animists in Africa south of the Sahara and of Ethiopia now came within range of Muslim power. For the Muslim, these were polytheists and idolators, and therefore not entitled to tolerance. For them the choice was between Islam and death, which later might be commuted to enslavement at the discretion of their captors."

A little further on, on p.20 he writes:

"The inclusion of the not very well defined Sabians [as one of the earlier, incomplete and imperfect forms of Islam] made it possible, by legal interpretation, to extend the kind of tolerance accorded to Jews and Christians much more widely, first to Zoroastrians in Persia, and later to Hindus in India and other groups elsewhere."

Thus, even if it is possible to find a good reference which unequivocally supports the claim that Muslims now regard Hindus as one of the peoples of the book, the article should not give the impression, as it currently does, that this has always been the case.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to David and Quantum for your input on this subject. Perhaps I need to be more clear on what is considered classic Sharia. Also, the term "traditional" has been equated with classic Sharia in this article. Over five hundred years passed between the establishment of the principles of classic fiqh with ash-Shafi (8th century CE), and the definitive work of al-Misri (14th century CE) upon which I heavily rely as a source. I am not certain how that fits in with a) Lewis' statement regarding early perception of Hindus as idolaters (obvious in itself) and b) Islamic tolerance of Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent (an historical fact according to Hodgson). For purposes of discussing the treatment of non-Muslims according to Sharia, a bit more precision may be required.
Am I speaking to your point? If so, thank you for bringing this to my attention. If not, please elaborate.
Regards, Aquib (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Eastward, the lower Indus valley, Sind, was conquered partly by land and partly by sea. The local Buddhists, who were evidently in part mercantile in orientation, seems to have preferred the Muslims to the Hindu ruling class. Hodgson, Venture of Islam, Vol 1, pg. 226 (passim) Discussing final Arab expansions in the 8th century....
The regime was conscious not only of its Turkicness but of its Muslimness. But - as had earlier Muslim governments in the Indus basin - it readily extended dhimmi status to its infidel subjects and made use of them in many capacities. Hodgson, Venture of Islam, Vol 2, pg. 278 Discussing 12th and 13th century... Rajputs, Sultanate of Delhi... Aquib (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, your revised version of this passage has adequately met the two objections I raised above. However, I do remain curious about the usage of the term "people of the book". From my (fairly limited) reading of literature about Islam I had gained the impression that the term was only ever properly used to refer to Jews and Christians, but I would appreciate being disabused of that impression if it is incorrect.
On taking another look at the main sources from which this impression was formed, I find that they're not entirely consistent on the matter. On p.9 of Karen Armstrong's ISLAM—A Short History, she writes:
"The Quran ... commands Muslims to respect the belief of Jews and Christians, whom [it] calls ahl al-kitab, a phrase usually translated 'People of the Book' but which is more accurately rendered 'people of an earlier revelation': ..."
Then, on p. 26 she writes:
"Furthermore, once the Arabs had left the peninsula, they found that nearly everybody belonged to the ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, who had received authentic scriptures from God."
Unfortunately, I don't think this can reasonably be used as a citation to justify the article's including Hindus as being covered by the term, because Armstrong doesn't mention them explicitly, although it seems more likely than not to me that she did consider them as being included.
The other source, which I have read somewhat more recently, and which has therefore apparently had a greater influence on the impression I had been left with, is 101 Questions you asked about Islam by Mehmet Ozalp, an Australian Muslim of Turkish ancestry. Ozalp's definition of "People of the Book" quite explicitly limits its application to Jews and Christians.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 18:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A fascinating insight, the workings of which I do not fully understand. Aquib (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This -> [12] looks interesting, but first I have to get through Courbage and Farges - "Christians and Jews Under Islam" and Bernard Lewis - "The Jews of Islam". Aquib (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharia/Archive_7&oldid=395156400"